Thats 9 months later, which fits right into my given timeframe (6-12 months) and it gave (your right) "only" 33% performance increase?
I will ask you again. Do you suppose the same again?
Wow, you saying Willamette performance and clock rate track 100%? You have used performance and frequency interchangeably. :-P
I don't know if Prescott clock rate will go up 33% in the first year but with the move to a 1066 MHz FSB and dual channel 667 MHz DDR2 I think performance should go up more than it did with Willamette.
Anyway you are sidestepping the critical point that with Athlon vs Willamette AMD had a substantial cost advantage while with A64 vs Prescott it is probably at a substantial cost disadvantage. The dreamer's talk of inflicting material "damage" on Intel is laughable.